Can someone clear up for me whether the anti-GMO people are picking out specific features they think are harmful about genetically-modified crops, or whether they believe that the modifications on the genetic level are somehow directly harmful. As a follow up to that, if it’s not too much trouble, that latter worry is nonsense, right? The body won’t react directly to GMOs at the genetic level, right? I’m pretty sure of that, but I did major in the humanities, so I’d like some confirmation.

Most of the anti-GMO is carte blanche hatred of the technology. Any social movement that labels the technology with the label, “Frankenfood”, is pretty much immune to nuance. For example, Greenpeace has opposed the introduction of golden rice in China, which would’ve provided much needed vitamin A for those who need it the most.

No idea who everyone but esteleth and PZ are. I’ve started giving them internal nicknames, the guy with the hat is jayne after the firefly character, then there’s Brit the british voice and the Paw voice (their voice reminds me of the musical reviewer paw).

There is some issues that have arose from companies like Monsanto patenting genes. They are very aggressive in protecting their property, weather or not the farmer had purchased their seeds or had their plants contaminated with their genes. They’ve said they have no intentions of pursuing lawsuits in the future but they could at any time start “defending their property” again.

I agree haitied. There are problems with patent enforcement by Monsanto, and the terminator gene, but sadly the conversation is almost always dominated by those who wish to have a completely ban on GMO crops for no other reason than it’s “unnatural”.

@haitied: I rarely see this kind of response, though, and even the people who do articulate such opinions, by my anecdata, tend to ALSO treat the GMOs as if they were harmful in themselves, absent any consideration of the business practices associated with them. Is this a dodge, then, or what?

There are some real issues with GMOs and some regulatory oversights, and some misreprestation on the part of pro-GMO boosters. These feed into many people’s suspicions of the behavior of large corporations (which is largely justified, if you remember the distortions and lies of the tobacco industry and the 1950s-era atomic energy boosters).

The most salient issues for me are the ecological risks and the outdated regulatory framework for approval of GMO foods.

The ecological risk: We know that transgenes escape into the wild relatives; this has been experimentally demonstrated in Brassica, for example. We also know that some transgenes, such as those that produce the insecticidal toxin bt, or those that provide frost resistance, would confer an enormous selective advantage on the recipient. This could lead to superweeds that disrupt natural ecosystems over wide areas.

The health risks: transgenes themselves have virtually no health risk, but some of the most popular transgenes cause the crop to produce an insecticidal toxin. We eat this or its breakdown products when we eat the crop (if it is an unrefined crop like potatoes or corn). Since the toxin itself is not physically added to the finished crop, the FDA does not treat it like a normal additive and does not regulate such crops. This loophole rightly breeds suspicion and doubt.

GMOs have many advantages, including environmental ones (eg less pesticide use). I think many of their problems could be overcome. But the most common strategy of many GMO boosters is to gloss over these legitimate problems and fears and play the “anti-science” card, just like the old atomic energy folks did. Their cause would be better served by honestly facing the real problems and solving them.

I used to be against GMOs, until I started noticing that all the problems associated with them didn’t stem from genetic engineering per se. Now I’m just against capitalism and capitalism’s version of farming.

I don’t think there’s anything inherently evil about capitalism per se. It’s a tool like any other, and is quite effective at solving certain kinds of problems. I think the real big problems start when you elevate it from tool to unalterable, unquestionable dogma.

I think the GMO segment of this session didn’t do justice to anti-GMO people. Yes, there are plenty of unrefined people among them who just don’t think and go for “natural all the way”. But there are also people who look at the real problems like food safety (though safety is a measure rather than safe or unsafe), ecological destabilization, and the business practices of GMO.

On food safety, one can mention the ties between GMO firms (yep! you guessed it! Monsanto) and the FDA, which allows to put things on the market without a thorough, independent investigation of the food products. Few have heard of Richard Burroughs, I suppose. Short version: he worked for the FDA and was in charge of Monsanto’s case of rBGH (bovine growth hormone). After finding gross scientific flaws and malpractice in the case, he sent Monsanto back to study so they could provide a more rigorous case. But Burroughs was fired abusively (as subsequently judged by a court) for slowing down rBGH’s approval. A mention is also needed of people like Terence Harvey, a director of the VMC (veterinary medicine center) of the FDA who went on to work for Monsanto.

This is just 1 issue about rBGH but similar things can be found about Monsanto’s studies on rats being fed GMO corn, where they will only test older male rats (no females, no young) and dismiss the however alarming coloration of the inside organs, while not allowing (and fiercely attacking) anyone who would want to reproduce their tests independently. And everyone heard recently of Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on rats, that ended up with photos of tumors. Shortly after, a host of papers published the opposition of “biologists” to this study, paying little attention to those biologists’ connection to Monsanto.

Finally on safety, I see here and there some mentions about “less pesticide”. This is doubly misleading. 1st reason: the plants produce pesticide themselves. So ok, there’s no need to spread pesticide, but the pesticide is there (and it’ll be in your plate too). 2nd: the effect of this self-produced pesticide will lead to resistance from pests, leading to a need for ever stronger pesticides, whether self-produced or not. So ok… at the beginning of the fight, GMOs take the advantage. But it’s temporary. So, there’s just more pesticide coming our way.

—

On ecological destabilization, we simply don’t know how GMO’s affect other non-GMO organisms. We’ve seen pictures of cross-breed wheat looking freaky and we know that the supposedly sterile GMO crops are not 100.00% sterile. We don’t know how they will compete in nature and we don’t know how they will impact organisms that feed on them (including us). And the use of these standardized crops leads to a big hit on biodiversity, bringing species to extinction. And the GMOs are already out there in the wild, like invasive species.

—

On business practices, let’s just remember what happened in Central America: GMOs were forbidden. Then crops got polluted so the products in supermarket had to tolerate a small percentage of GMOs. Then they were legalized and the “bio-farmers” were sued by Monsanto for illegally using licensed crops, when these biofarmers were in fact victims of a contamination as the wind carried some not-infertile GMOs.

—

Conclusion : I’m not opposed to GMOs “in principle”. If they were appropriately studied and demonstrably healthy, open to independent testing, and well regulated and that laws were not being used abusively against the biofarmers… sure! There would be no need to complain. But it’s simply not the way things work in real life and we have superpowerful lobbies crushing honest people and feeding us stuff of which effects are a secret and cannot be investigated by anyone.

Sorry for the lengthy comment but I think this was treated exceedingly lightly by PZ and hsi guests.

Well said on the placebo nonsense. I share the reflexive anger at anyone who claims that non-therapy “does no harm”. I have known too many people with cancer to give that a pass.

On a lighter note:

PZ, you said tea doesn’t count as an energy drink. You are obviously not counting Чифи́р. Chifir’ is at least as foul-tasting as some of the gimmicky drinks you mentioned, and has too much caffeine and far too many odd-ball alkaloids in it. It’s the tea equivalent of the near-solid coffee.

During the talk, you quoted “The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion” and noted that anti-choice demonstrators often seek abortions when they need them. That is quite true, and reveals something important about the actual motivations of a large subset of those who describe themselves as pro-life. However, that essay does not describe a case where a woman waiting for her procedure was passing out anti-choice literature in the clinic’s waiting room. The actual case described:

The medical director at a Dallas abortion clinic told this story: A white woman from an affluent north Dallas neighborhood brought her black maid in for an abortion and paid for it. While the maid was in a counseling session, a commotion was heard in the waiting room outside. The maid’s employer was handing out anti-abortion leaflets to other women waiting for abortions.

The contradiction between the employer’s actions was still very great, of course.

ckitching: You responded to my earlier comment by saying that the FDA does regulate GMO foods. Yes, they have the authority to do so. However, the FDA regards most GMO corps as “generally regarded as safe” and does not require special testing. In the specific case I mentioned, GMOs expressing pesticides like the bt toxin, they specifically waive their regulatory authority (Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, 57 Fed. Reg. at 23,005.)

Note: I am an ecologist and geneticist, not a lawyer, so I am not an expert in these regulations. There may be newer ones that I am not aware of.

One of the “Richard Dawkins interviews” youtube videos has some really interesting stuff about placebos, with Nicholas Humphrey. It sounded to me like Humphrey has a pretty good idea how placebos work and why, though I don’t see how to defend his viewpoint.

Since I was one of those panellists, I reckon your criticism is spot on. We didn’t do the topic of GMOs full justice. We didn’t do anything full justice because this was a ~1hr chat with 5 people about 6 topics.

I don’t mean that defensively, like I said I think your critique is right. I confess I didn’t approach any of the subjects with anything more than cursory rigour because I thought that’s what was required. If there’s another podcast and if I’m on it and people want more rigorous treatments of subjects I know a reasonable amount about (like for example drugs/pharma etc) then I’ll happily do the homework.

My grandpa was the living example of the Malcebo effect.
He’d read the information leaflet and then pick one of the side effects to get.
We also discovered that one of the TV channels ran something called “bio-weather” that told people with certain conditions what to expect. He would be afflicted, even if his actual condition was the complete opposite.

Can someone clear up for me whether the anti-GMO people are picking out specific features they think are harmful about genetically-modified crops, or whether they believe that the modifications on the genetic level are somehow directly harmful.

THEY’RE PUTTING GENES INTO ORGANISMS!!!1!

Seriously, that’s the most common objection. See also: “gene-free Austria”.

the guy with the hat is jayne after the firefly character

:-D :-D :-D Now that you say it…

I was going to participate but I chickened out.

:-( :-( :-( :-(

I don’t think there’s anything inherently evil about capitalism per se. It’s a tool like any other, and is quite effective at solving certain kinds of problems. I think the real big problems start when you elevate it from tool to unalterable, unquestionable dogma.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail!

Malcebo

Nocebo, “I will harm”. Same word as in primum non nocere, “first, not to do harm”.

We didn’t do anything full justice because this was a ~1hr chat with 5 people about 6 topics.

Indeed; it was a bit like a panel discussion on TV. May I ask for fewer topics next time?

Oh, and seriously “people who have problems with GMOs just want people to starve” is a bit of a stoopid argument.
Hunger today is hardly a problem of not growing enough food. It’s a problem of distribution and actually eating large quantities of meat.
And I think we all know that the goal of Monsanto and Co. isn’t “feed the world”, their goal is to “increase profits, fuck the world.” I agree that this is not an argument so much about GMOs as such but about those in whose hands they are, but since they’re in the hands of immoral bastards the utalitarian argument in favour of them hardly applies.
IMO, we need an alternative that is sensible and sustainable farming and maybe GMOs will play a role in that, but that’s not the way it currently looks like.

The little chat caught my attention because I’ve been a Ben Goldacre follower for years. I haven’t had a chance to read his upcoming book (out in the US in Feb 2013), but I’d recommend his first book “Bad Science” to anyone who’s interested in:
– Why most media (web, TV, radio) is terrible at reporting scientific research results
– The basics of clinical scientific trials
– Just exactly how crazy homeopathy is (you don’t even know!)
– How a new drug or treatment goes from research to market
– Everything you wanted to know about the Placebo Effect
– How to clean your Barbie dolls
– And so much more…

He’s an incredible writer and it’s an enjoyable read. It’s a book that I think should be required reading in junior education classes. I think ninth graders could handle the book and assuming children still read these days (texts longer than a Tweet or a Facebook post), I think they’d enjoy it and benefit.

The guy from the UK who works in the Pharmaceutical Industry (I think) was very interesting and also downright hilarious. He was very composed, articulate and at times his side jokes and references made me laugh out loud. He really had the perfect balance. It wasn’t over the top. It was just perfect. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

I enjoy cursing like a sailor, just as much as the next sailor bellied up to the bar, but it has a time and a place. Just a friendly suggestion for the young woman by the name of ‘Esteleth’.

The guy from the UK who works in the Pharmaceutical Industry (I think) was very interesting and also downright hilarious. He was very composed, articulate and at times his side jokes and references made me laugh out loud. He really had the perfect balance. It wasn’t over the top. It was just perfect. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

Thank you.

I enjoy cursing like a sailor, just as much as the next sailor bellied up to the bar, but it has a time and a place. Just a friendly suggestion for the young woman by the name of ‘Esteleth’.

Fuck you.

I was watching the video, cringing at myself, and I made a very rough count of the swear words for Esteleth and myself. I got about 9 for Esteleth and 10 for me.* So I was perfectly balanced but poor old Esteleth was a salty sea dog….

I’m smelling a double standard.

So in conclusion, thanks for the compliment, but please feel free to cram your sexist double standards directly up your bottom.

Love and kisses.

Louis

* I included “shag” and “god damn” etc, and this count wasn’t very accurate due to aforementioned cringing.

I honestly hadn’t noticed your cursing. Maybe it was the tone of your voice or accent? Maybe it was because the cursing was interwoven into a long narrative? I don’t consider “shag” and “god damn” to be curses, or anywhere as abrasive as the word “FUCK” especially if I am listening on speakers within earshot of co-workers or family.

@Others

All apologies to those who I have offended including ‘Esteleth’.

I had forgotten for a moment that Pharyngula had become the White Knight Society and that anything remotely inflammatory or of a critical nature said towards anyone who happens to own a vagina was a unquestionable indictment of misogyny and a hatred towards all women (including one’s own mother).

I’m at least relatively sure that Esteleth would not tolerate white knighting of any kind, but really don’t you think referring to Esteleth as “young woman” and critiquing her swearingand not others when there was plenty of swearing going around (as if it’s actually worth criticising at all) is a pretty decent instance of sexism? If you noticed hers more than a random man’s swearing is it really so great a leap to infer from that and your patronising phrasing that the possibility at least exists you did so because of some inherent, unexamined sexism on your part?

Does being called on doing some that appears moderately sexist equate to “a unquestionable indictment of misogyny and a hatred towards all women (including one’s own mother).”? Really? I’m pretty sure I have a number of sexist ideas and habits curdling away in me. I’m pretty sure I’m a sexist. I try not to be but there’s a certain inevitability, after all I grew up in a sexist society and live in one now. I’d have done rather well to avoid it all. I’m also pretty sure I don’t hate all women, or anyone really, including my own mother. I think you might be doubling down and raising a straw man. Now that is naughty.

LOL! As soon as I read this sentence, I knew that you were fucking lying about actually being sorry for anything.

I had forgotten for a moment that Pharyngula had become the White Knight Society and that anything remotely inflammatory or of a critical nature said towards anyone who happens to own a vagina was a unquestionable indictment of misogyny and a hatred towards all women (including one’s own mother).

And I was right. Fuck off, you pathetic, dishonest little pissant. I like Pharyngula precisely because of the absence of sexist Puritans like you. Go the fuck away if it bothers you to know that “young ladies” are cursing at you.

I hate fucking liars. Lying is far more offensive than cursing, that is, IF you are rational.

I had forgotten for a moment that Pharyngula had become the White Knight Society

Oh, do fuck off.

I warned you (more politely that you deserve, apparently) that whining about swearing would only draw the ire of the regulars commenters. I had a niggling suspicion that you might have objected to the cursing because it was a woman, but I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Silly me, I know.

I was in no way saving a damsel in distress; I was warning a floundering fuckwit of the snark and righteous wrath he’d incur by complaining about swearing. No good deed goes unpunished, it seems.

I honestly hadn’t noticed your cursing. Maybe it was the tone of your voice or accent?

Translation: Men swear all the time, so I don’t notice it. But a woman!!

Actually, there is no placebo effect. The problem is that we tend to look at only two groups: Those who receive treatment and those who receive placebo.

But if we’re going to examine the effect of placebo, then we need a third group: Those who receive no treatment of any kind. While there aren’t nearly as many studies that look at all three groups, there are a fair number of them and when we look at their results we see that those who receive placebo have no different outcome compared to those that receive no treatment of any kind other than reporting slightly less pain:

The body has self-repair mechanisms. This is trivially obvious: It must have or there would be no way for the body to heal anything. So because the body can become ill all on its own, it is possible for it to heal itself all on its own. Therefore, we should not be surprised that a procedure that does nothing might have positive outcomes.

That doesn’t mean there is any “effect” going on. It just means the body is doing what the body does.

Maybe in the future you could label videos with a NSFW or Language warning on videos. I simply used the name of the first chatter, that I noticed, who dropped the loudest F-BOMB (all ‘shags’, ‘bloody wankers’ and ‘god damns’ aside). There are some cases where the word is still not acceptable, like for example someone listening in at work on their laptop’s speakers. You know… the same reason someone’s work may not have any problem with them listening to NPR in the background, but might have a problem if they were listening to the Howard Stern show (or ask them to wear headphones).

Keep up the good fight White Knights, and keep imagining atrocities where there are none. Maybe you’ll burn a few innocent “witches”, but unless you burn them all… how will you know that you’ve BURNED ALL THE WITCHES?!

Wait, if I said witches, will this be construed as another misogynistic threat of terrorism? I think there were men-witches too. I should be safe…

I see no atrocity or threat of terrorism. I’m pretty sure no one else did/does either. And what the hell is penile guilt? I have a hard enough time not telling jokes about mine and keeping the damned thing in my pants! Guilt? Wouldn’t be interested even if I had the time.

I think you’re a mite defensive for someone so obviously not sexist and so profoundly protective of his colleagues ears. A little quick to reach for the “white knight” card too weren’t you? Isn’t that page three of the handbook?

Tell me, how do you think this going for you? I mean wow have you never even heard of the first rule of holes?

Anyway, have a nice evening, I look forward to more frothing denial when I wake up tomorrow. Toodles.

I have discovered that I have a penis, and yet I don’t feel remotely guilty about it. I also don’t hate women and try not to a totally sexist arsebiscuit. What is wrong with me?

Yours

Confused With Cock

________________________________________

Dear Confused With Cock,

You are clearly a White Knighting Mangina. I’m not entirely sure what those terms mean, but if you don’t hate women and you have a schlong, you’re doing it wrong. Apparently if you’re not immediately in agreement with every whiny fuckbubble’s pathetic criticisms of someone without a dong, then you are rushing to protect that dongless person, even if they can do a ruddy good job themselves and certainly don’t need you to do it.

Hope this helps, and remember, bitches ain’t shit, and never examine anything you do becvause there’s no way you inherited any sexism from the sexist culture around you. It can’t possibly happen because penises are magic.